MAVJIBHAI PREMJIBHAI SAVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No.2- Collector to consider the petitioners' application dated 19.02.2011 (Annexure-H to the petition) seeking conversion of their land from new tenure to old tenure for non-agricultural use purpose on payment of premium as per the current policy of the Government within a stipulated period.

(3.) PURSUANT thereto, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T, by an order dated 20.02.2008, removed the restrictions of new tenure under section 43 of the Tenancy Act by observing that the said order shall be subject to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.9609 of 2006 and the letters patent appeal preferred by the Government against the said order and an entry giving effect to the said order of the Mamlatdar & ALT came to be posted vide Mutation Entry No.6481, Pursuant to the above order of the Mamlatdar & ALT removing the restrictions under section 43 of the Tenancy Act, the petitioners herein purchased the subject land under two different registered sale-deeds bearing No. 3373 and 3395, both dated 14.03.2008 and corresponding entry, being Mutation Entry No.6520 came to be posted on 16.04.2008, whereby the names of the petitioners came to be entered in the revenue record. By a communication dated 05.05.2008, the petitioners requested the concerned authorities to certify the said mutation entries. Since the mutation entries were not being certified, the petitioners approached this court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7336 of 2008, seeking a direction to the concerned authority to certify both the above entries, viz., Mutation Entry No.6481 dated 25.02.2008 as well as Mutation Entry No.6520 dated 16.04.2008. By way of an amendment to the petition, the petitioners also challenged the order whereby the mutation entry was cancelled. By an order dated 22.10.2008, the petition came to be disposed of with a direction that the Collector concerned shall take appropriate decision whether the order of the Mamlatdar & A.L.T needs to be taken in revision within four weeks from the date of the said order and that if the Collector decides to take the order of the Mamlatdar in revision, the revision shall be decided after hearing the concerned persons within three months. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector, City Prant, Surat took the order dated 20.02.2008 made by the Mamlatdar in revision, which is still pending.